I think it's the only way that does not involve going back to the country. Make the political declaration more Labour-friendly.
I think this would work as a way to embarrass Labour, but not as a way to win the vote. I don't think enough of Labour would vote for the deal, even with a customs union, to save her.
No. If May decides to go for a Brexit that's she can get through with Labour support ( which I don't think she will, but let's suppose) she wlll lose a lot of Tory MPs and so she will need to gain the support of the vast majority on the Labour side to get a deal through. So she will need to appeal not only to the Norway supporters but also those who are currently pressing for a second referendum. The absolute minimum she would need to offer would be permanent membership of SM and CU, and even then there would be enormous pressure to put the whole thing to a referendum. This would be anathema to most Tories and it doesn't seem to me to be a credible option.
Pretty much, although Labour's position isn't to have membership of the SM, IIRC.
I do think she may lose fewer Tory MPs than you'd expect because a significant number of those who voted for her deal last night were either quiet-lifers, or loyalists, or anything-but-no-dealers, all groups who would vote for just about anything she put forward. Also if she got close I think the whips would be able to do a much more effective job of pushing waverers over the line.
Even given all of the above, though, I just don't see how she could make the numbers add up.
Listening to May on PMQs is soul destroying. She says she wants to speak to parliamentarians, but keeps repeating the red lines that stopped support from leavers and remainers. What is she going to speak to them about?
Listening to May on PMQs is soul destroying. She says she wants to speak to parliamentarians, but keeps repeating the red lines that stopped support from leavers and remainers. What is she going to speak to them about?
She's going to deploy that famous May charm, and win them over with sheer charisma
Listening to May on PMQs is soul destroying. She says she wants to speak to parliamentarians, but keeps repeating the red lines that stopped support from leavers and remainers. What is she going to speak to them about?
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
Listening to May on PMQs is soul destroying. She says she wants to speak to parliamentarians, but keeps repeating the red lines that stopped support from leavers and remainers. What is she going to speak to them about?
Give it time - she cannot suddenly change tack
She may have genuinely forgotten that her red lines weren't on the referendum ballot, and were instead something that Nick Timothy wrote on the back of a napkin. The only time her approach to Brexit was in any way put before the electorate, they responded by stripping her of her majority.
I think it's the only way that does not involve going back to the country. Make the political declaration more Labour-friendly.
I think this would work as a way to embarrass Labour, but not as a way to win the vote. I don't think enough of Labour would vote for the deal, even with a customs union, to save her.
No. If May decides to go for a Brexit that's she can get through with Labour support ( which I don't think she will, but let's suppose) she wlll lose a lot of Tory MPs and so she will need to gain the support of the vast majority on the Labour side to get a deal through. So she will need to appeal not only to the Norway supporters but also those who are currently pressing for a second referendum. The absolute minimum she would need to offer would be permanent membership of SM and CU, and even then there would be enormous pressure to put the whole thing to a referendum. This would be anathema to most Tories and it doesn't seem to me to be a credible option.
Pretty much, although Labour's position isn't to have membership of the SM, IIRC.
I do think she may lose fewer Tory MPs than you'd expect because a significant number of those who voted for her deal last night were either quiet-lifers, or loyalists, or anything-but-no-dealers, all groups who would vote for just about anything she put forward. Also if she got close I think the whips would be able to do a much more effective job of pushing waverers over the line.
Even given all of the above, though, I just don't see how she could make the numbers add up.
Labour's official position is not in favour of SM membership but many remain MPs would demand it as the price of their support. Although you may be right about May losing fewer Tory MPs if she takes this route she would certainly lose a number of cabinet ministers and she might not be able to survive another slew of resignations. The Tory Party is in a state of collapse, it is already two parties in all but name.
I heard somewhere that Mogg had a champagne celebration. Is that true ?
So I gather. And I'm not sure that it was merited, because although the No Deal bogeyman has to be kept alive to scare the wimps I do get the feeling that, push completing the long hard journey to shove, it will not be countenanced and, absent a deal, Brexit will be delayed and quite possibly cancelled.
Perhaps JRM & Co would secretly not mind this outcome too much. Back to the great and noble struggle with a grievance fueled tiger in their tank.
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
It's also a payment thing - as I understand it, the fees for being in it may be close to our current membership fees.
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
Future trade agreements thing.
However logically (yes I know, dangerous thing with Brexit) it would be bonkers to Leave the single market but remain in the customs union.
I think Leavers would fear that eventually the pressure would force us to (re)join the single markets, which would mean free movement.
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
It's a completely synthetic thing made up by people who disingenuously try to claim "the will of the people" for something that most people have never heard of, still less could define.
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).
It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.
I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
Not immigration. Bit of both of the other two, depending on how hard a Leaver you are. Plus possibly a cherry picking thing from the EU side.
Personally I'm in favour of CU membership, as negotiating trade deals is the one thing the EU is unambiguously good at. But the argument is that the deals are structured primarily to benefit France/Germany, and with no EU membership, we'd have zero negotiating power to redirect that to our key interests. Of course, the hard Leavers mostly believe we never had that power anyway, in which case Leaving whilst retaining CU membership is a strict upgrade on Remaining.
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
Future trade agreements thing.
However logically (yes I know, dangerous thing with Brexit) it would be bonkers to Leave the single market but remain in the customs union.
I think Leavers would fear that eventually the pressure would force us to (re)join the single markets, which would mean free movement.
And frankly if that happens, then we might as well have membership of the EU with our current opt outs.
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
Customs Union isn't a big deal either way. It nominally prevents the UK having an independent trade policy, but the policy is to shadow the EU as much as possible because those trade deals are better than anything the UK would get on its own. But a CU on its own won't prevent trade barriers popping up. You need the SM as well, and that's a much bigger deal.
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
Not immigration. Bit of both of the other two, depending on how hard a Leaver you are. Plus possibly a cherry picking thing from the EU side.
Personally I'm in favour of CU membership, as negotiating trade deals is the one thing the EU is unambiguously good at. But the argument is that the deals are structured primarily to benefit France/Germany, and with no EU membership, we'd have zero negotiating power to redirect that to our key interests. Of course, the hard Leavers mostly believe we never had that power anyway, in which case Leaving whilst retaining CU membership is a strict upgrade on Remaining.
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).
It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.
I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
The FTPA was created by the Lib Dems because they feared the Tory party might ditch David Cameron and replace him with headbanger who might cut and run and call an early election.
The backstop is effectively being in the Customs Union, but without paying any fees (and without the FoM requirement). It's ironic that this very good deal for us is the one most vociferously rejected.
For the long term, I think it's very unlikely that the EU would allow us to be in the CU but not in the Single Market and agreeing to FoM. Cherry-picking.
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).
It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.
I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
Yes. Well put. It seems like the obvious solution to me.
That is what I have always thought. But not so sure now.
If the only way to leave is with the Treaty, and the Treaty is blocked by the DUP (because they would collapse the govt if it passed), then I don't see how we can leave as long as we have this configuration in parliament, i.e. before a GE.
Mr. Eagles, for the Coalition period it made sense. The absence of a sunset clause did not. It should've automatically ceased to be in 2015.
Ahead of the referendum result, I said the customs union was the only thing I'd consider a firm red line. It's demented to vote to Leave the EU, then have them dictate our trade deals, and pay them for the privilege. We might as well stay in rather than go ahead with that nonsense.
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
Future trade agreements thing.
However logically (yes I know, dangerous thing with Brexit) it would be bonkers to Leave the single market but remain in the customs union.
I think Leavers would fear that eventually the pressure would force us to (re)join the single markets, which would mean free movement.
Cheers (and to the others who responded with different degrees of sarcasm and helpfulness),
Mr. Eagles, for the Coalition period it made sense. The absence of a sunset clause did not. It should've automatically ceased to be in 2015.
Ahead of the referendum result, I said the customs union was the only thing I'd consider a firm red line. It's demented to vote to Leave the EU, then have them dictate our trade deals, and pay them for the privilege. We might as well stay in rather than go ahead with that nonsense.
We'll leave the customs union once David Davis sorts out the Anglo-German trade deal he promised.
The FTPA does have a sunset clause which should have kicked in 2020 but will now kick in 2022.
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
Customs Union isn't a big deal either way. It nominally prevents the UK having an independent trade policy, but the policy is to shadow the EU as much as possible because those trade deals are better than anything the UK would get on its own. But a CU on its own won't prevent trade barriers popping up. You need the SM as well, and that's a much bigger deal.
The FTPA was created by the Lib Dems because they feared the Tory party might ditch David Cameron and replace him with headbanger who might cut and run and call an early election.
and it was sensible for that period
now we have the spectacle of a government held to ransom by its own backbenchers, anybody can flounce on anything and theres no downside until the next GE
The FTPA was created by the Lib Dems because they feared the Tory party might ditch David Cameron and replace him with headbanger who might cut and run and call an early election.
That doesn't address the issue that it should have ended in 2015.
Mr. Eagles, May binned Davis' proposals and undercut him by opting for her own (and Robbins') deal, which has turned out to not be universally beloved by MPs.
The current impasse is due to many things, amongst which May's intransigence and incompetence certainly number.
A good snapshot in PMQ's was when Ken Clarke offered his opinion that A50 should be extended and a customs union considered, Bridgen mouthed 'insane'
And there is the problem. TM needs to navigate a way that marginalising these ultras
She's not going to try. Her remarks during PMQs suggest that she doesn't intend to budge on any of the core facets of the deal: there'll be no customs union and no freedom of movement. Indeed, how can she make any substantial concessions at all? Firstly the Withdrawal Agreement is what's already been agreed with the EU27 - and Britain cannot, of course, compel them to offer something else, regardless of the Parliamentary arithmetic - and secondly, even if they are amenable to some kind of renegotiation it's only likely to be on terms that draw the UK closer into European integration, an outcome which May believes to be inconsistent with honouring the Leave vote.
Unbelievably, despite the record drubbing inflicted on the Deal only last night, a Government success in tonight's VoNC will reveal that nothing has changed. May is still running down the clock, still intending to present a heavily pro-EU Parliament with no choice other than her Withdrawal Agreement or Hard Brexit.
This only changes if HoC procedures are changed to remove the Government's control of the legislative timetable, or if a sufficient number of Conservative Hard Remainers get desperate enough to decide to vote out their own Government. Until then we're still heading for Deal or No Deal, and No Deal on March 29th remains the law of the land.
Mr. Eagles, May binned Davis' proposals and undercut him by opting for her own (and Robbins') deal, which has turned out to not be universally beloved by MPs.
The current impasse is due to many things, amongst which May's intransigence and incompetence certainly number.
Davis' proposals were utterly unacceptable to the EU. May binning them was absolutely the right thing to do.
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).
It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.
I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
Yes. Well put. It seems like the obvious solution to me.
The customs union is protectionist,, it requires us to levy heavy tarrifs on non-EU imports.
The FTPA was created by the Lib Dems because they feared the Tory party might ditch David Cameron and replace him with headbanger who might cut and run and call an early election.
and it was sensible for that period
now we have the spectacle of a government held to ransom by its own backbenchers, anybody can flounce on anything and theres no downside until the next GE
That's a feature not a bug, surely. I'm enjoying the House of Commons actually acting like a legislature and not a patsy of the Government.
A good snapshot in PMQ's was when Ken Clarke offered his opinion that A50 should be extended and a customs union considered, Bridgen mouthed 'insane'...
That shows a self-awareness I hadn't thought Bridgen capable of...
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
Customs Union isn't a big deal either way. It nominally prevents the UK having an independent trade policy, but the policy is to shadow the EU as much as possible because those trade deals are better than anything the UK would get on its own. But a CU on its own won't prevent trade barriers popping up. You need the SM as well, and that's a much bigger deal.
But it solves NI border, no?
A CU (without GB FM membership) reduces but does not eliminate checks between GB and NI. On my understanding. SM is where regulatory conformance applies. The EU is committed to accept NI goods without border checks but not GB ones.
The FTPA was created by the Lib Dems because they feared the Tory party might ditch David Cameron and replace him with headbanger who might cut and run and call an early election.
and it was sensible for that period
now we have the spectacle of a government held to ransom by its own backbenchers, anybody can flounce on anything and theres no downside until the next GE
That's a feature not a bug, surely. I'm enjoying the House of Commons actually acting like a legislature and not a patsy of the Government.
no doubt there is fun to be had, but in between there is no governance and things the country needs to do just dont get done
The FTPA was created by the Lib Dems because they feared the Tory party might ditch David Cameron and replace him with headbanger who might cut and run and call an early election.
and it was sensible for that period
now we have the spectacle of a government held to ransom by its own backbenchers, anybody can flounce on anything and theres no downside until the next GE
That's a feature not a bug, surely. I'm enjoying the House of Commons actually acting like a legislature and not a patsy of the Government.
no doubt there is fun to be had, but in between there is no governance and things the country needs to do just dont get done
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
Customs Union isn't a big deal either way. It nominally prevents the UK having an independent trade policy, but the policy is to shadow the EU as much as possible because those trade deals are better than anything the UK would get on its own. But a CU on its own won't prevent trade barriers popping up. You need the SM as well, and that's a much bigger deal.
But it solves NI border, no?
A CU (without GB FM membership) reduces but does not eliminate checks between GB and NI. On my understanding. SM is where regulatory conformance applies. The EU is committed to accept NI goods without border checks but not GB ones.
Ok, got it. So why is this deemed by Labour to be an important concession to get from the government? Cui bono?
I think this is spot on. I have no idea where things will go from here bit it would delight me if both those sets of zealots outside Parliament could somehow lose. The Deal was far from perfect and I think it was poorly negotiated but as far as the fundamentals go - we leave but maintain ties with the EU - it is basically the template for every single possible deal that could realistically be negotiated. It is a great shame it wasn't given more respect by both sides.
I wonder if there is a psychological need for parliament to make a lot of noise, since TM has kept everything so tight and insular, and that once they have been allowed to do so, have some votes, have some meetings, that they will eventually face the big question of do we want to leave the EU?, and if yes we must ratify the Treaty, maybe with some changes to the PD, some further assurances bla bla, so that it does eventually get passed, maybe a short extension to implement, but just a matter of time.
That is what I have always thought. And perhaps still do, on balance, but what is increasingly dawning on me is the extent of the DUP problem. They are not only against the Treaty, they will collapse the government if it were to pass. So I am beginning to think that a general election is needed first. Like, if the Brexit impasse were a disease and I was the attending Doctor, a general election is what I would now be prescribing. Not in the certain knowledge that it would provide a cure, but in the reasonable hope that it would, no other remedies being obviously available.
A customs union prevents us from dispensing with EU import tariffs.
It keeps goods expensive.
Average EU import tariffs are 1.6% for external goods and 0% internally. They are lower in most cases than the cost of handling EU/UK customs declarations. Also the UK would apply customs tariffs of its own, which would include goods from the EU unless otherewise negotiated in a preferential trade deal.
So, no. Prices would be higher outside of the customs union.
A good snapshot in PMQ's was when Ken Clarke offered his opinion that A50 should be extended and a customs union considered, Bridgen mouthed 'insane'
And there is the problem. TM needs to navigate a way that marginalising these ultras
She's not going to try. Her remarks during PMQs suggest that she doesn't intend to budge on any of the core facets of the deal: there'll be no customs union and no freedom of movement. Indeed, how can she make any substantial concessions at all? Firstly the Withdrawal Agreement is what's already been agreed with the EU27 - and Britain cannot, of course, compel them to offer something else, regardless of the Parliamentary arithmetic - and secondly, even if they are amenable to some kind of renegotiation it's only likely to be on terms that draw the UK closer into European integration, an outcome which May believes to be inconsistent with honouring the Leave vote.
Unbelievably, despite the record drubbing inflicted on the Deal only last night, a Government success in tonight's VoNC will reveal that nothing has changed. May is still running down the clock, still intending to present a heavily pro-EU Parliament with no choice other than her Withdrawal Agreement or Hard Brexit.
This only changes if HoC procedures are changed to remove the Government's control of the legislative timetable, or if a sufficient number of Conservative Hard Remainers get desperate enough to decide to vote out their own Government. Until then we're still heading for Deal or No Deal, and No Deal on March 29th remains the law of the land.
Until yesterday the U.K. Had 3 options, no deal, Mays deal or no Brexit. Now there are only 2 options, no deal or no Brexit. It is completely unrealistic to imagine that a new deal could be put together by 29 March, or even July, and find majority support both in parliament and the EU.
I expect panic to spread as we approach 29 March and Parliament will then vote to revoke A50, followed by either a referendum or a general election, perhaps both.
The FTPA was created by the Lib Dems because they feared the Tory party might ditch David Cameron and replace him with headbanger who might cut and run and call an early election.
and it was sensible for that period
now we have the spectacle of a government held to ransom by its own backbenchers, anybody can flounce on anything and theres no downside until the next GE
That's a feature not a bug, surely. I'm enjoying the House of Commons actually acting like a legislature and not a patsy of the Government.
no doubt there is fun to be had, but in between there is no governance and things the country needs to do just dont get done
Like what?
ooh we could reform the house of Lords perhaps, have an economic policy, build some roads and houses, reform University financing, reform overseas aid, stick some meaningful green policies like maritime no fishing zones, plant some forests, delegate more powers down to local government and finance it properly etc
Mr. Brooke, quite. The plan to make a hard border impossible may, in fact, make a hard border the reality on the ground.
Mr. Matt, I don't think it's outrageous to hold the Prime Minister responsible for the deal she negotiated.
Mr. Observer, I wrote this a little earlier, but it's possible May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal, she has another vote, threatens a second referendum (her deal versus remain) if it doesn't pass, it doesn't, we get another referendum.
Problems with that, of course, but it is a plausible way that we get a second referendum.
With what option on that Second Referendum for the 52%?
Precisely. A large majority of Tories support Leave. Is she really going to take away the option of no deal to appease a minority of her base support i.e deal supporters who would rather remain than leave without a deal and Tories who outright wish to remain. It would be suicide for the Tory party not to think about no deal, given the most vociferous opposition to it are those who would never vote Conservative anyway.
Unless I am mistaken, on R4 this morning Lammy called for three options on second ref. (No Deal, Deal and Revoke). I assume he reflects a significant body of opinion in the People's Vote campaign? How a three option ballot could be structured is a very tricky and critical issue if we go down that path.
It could be done - May's deal yes/no If no, then Revoke vs Not Revoke.
Whether such a proposal is in the slightest bit realistic at this point is another matter.
I think there is an issue with Yes/No as it is deemed to create a bias towards “yes”
I think this is spot on. I have no idea where things will go from here bit it would delight me if both those sets of zealots outside Parliament could somehow lose. The Deal was far from perfect and I think it was poorly negotiated but as far as the fundamentals go - we leave but maintain ties with the EU - it is basically the template for every single possible deal that could realistically be negotiated. It is a great shame it wasn't given more respect by both sides.
I wonder if there is a psychological need for parliament to make a lot of noise, since TM has kept everything so tight and insular, and that once they have been allowed to do so, have some votes, have some meetings, that they will eventually face the big question of do we want to leave the EU?, and if yes we must ratify the Treaty, maybe with some changes to the PD, some further assurances bla bla, so that it does eventually get passed, maybe a short extension to implement, but just a matter of time.
That is what I have always thought. And perhaps still do, on balance, but what is increasingly dawning on me is the extent of the DUP problem. They are not only against the Treaty, they will collapse the government if it were to pass. So I am beginning to think that a general election is needed first. Like, if the Brexit impasse were a disease and I was the attending Doctor, a general election is what I would now be prescribing. Not in the certain knowledge that it would provide a cure, but in the reasonable hope that it would, no other remedies being obviously available.
The first part was what I was floating this morning. From my experience in industrial relations, things always seem the worst in the moments before a way through is found and agreed. The problem, I think, is that our PM (despite her underestimated skills in progressing determinedly down a single path, on which I have commented before) doesn't have the skill set to deliver a majority in Parliament for any proposal of her own.
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
Customs Union isn't a big deal either way. It nominally prevents the UK having an independent trade policy, but the policy is to shadow the EU as much as possible because those trade deals are better than anything the UK would get on its own. But a CU on its own won't prevent trade barriers popping up. You need the SM as well, and that's a much bigger deal.
But it solves NI border, no?
A CU (without GB FM membership) reduces but does not eliminate checks between GB and NI. On my understanding. SM is where regulatory conformance applies. The EU is committed to accept NI goods without border checks but not GB ones.
Ok, got it. So why is this deemed by Labour to be an important concession to get from the government? Cui bono?
Mr. Brooke, quite. The plan to make a hard border impossible may, in fact, make a hard border the reality on the ground.
Mr. Matt, I don't think it's outrageous to hold the Prime Minister responsible for the deal she negotiated.
Mr. Observer, I wrote this a little earlier, but it's possible May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal, she has another vote, threatens a second referendum (her deal versus remain) if it doesn't pass, it doesn't, we get another referendum.
Problems with that, of course, but it is a plausible way that we get a second referendum.
With what option on that Second Referendum for the 52%?
Precisely. A large majority of Tories support Leave. Is she really going to take away the option of no deal to appease a minority of her base support i.e deal supporters who would rather remain than leave without a deal and Tories who outright wish to remain. It would be suicide for the Tory party not to think about no deal, given the most vociferous opposition to it are those who would never vote Conservative anyway.
Unless I am mistaken, on R4 this morning Lammy called for three options on second ref. (No Deal, Deal and Revoke). I assume he reflects a significant body of opinion in the People's Vote campaign? How a three option ballot could be structured is a very tricky and critical issue if we go down that path.
It could be done - May's deal yes/no If no, then Revoke vs Not Revoke.
Whether such a proposal is in the slightest bit realistic at this point is another matter.
I think there is an issue with Yes/No as it is deemed to create a bias towards “yes”
Well given the shellacking it has taken over the past few months, it seems only fair...
A good snapshot in PMQ's was when Ken Clarke offered his opinion that A50 should be extended and a customs union considered, Bridgen mouthed 'insane'
And there is the problem. TM needs to navigate a way that marginalising these ultras
She's not going to try. Her remarks during PMQs suggest that she doesn't intend to budge on any of the core facets of the deal: there'll be no customs union and no freedom of movement. Indeed, how can she make any substantial concessions at all? Firstly the Withdrawal Agreement is what's already been agreed with the EU27 - and Britain cannot, of course, compel them to offer something else, regardless of the Parliamentary arithmetic - and secondly, even if they are amenable to some kind of renegotiation it's only likely to be on terms that draw the UK closer into European integration, an outcome which May believes to be inconsistent with honouring the Leave vote.
Unbelievably, despite the record drubbing inflicted on the Deal only last night, a Government success in tonight's VoNC will reveal that nothing has changed. May is still running down the clock, still intending to present a heavily pro-EU Parliament with no choice other than her Withdrawal Agreement or Hard Brexit.
This only changes if HoC procedures are changed to remove the Government's control of the legislative timetable, or if a sufficient number of Conservative Hard Remainers get desperate enough to decide to vote out their own Government. Until then we're still heading for Deal or No Deal, and No Deal on March 29th remains the law of the land.
Until yesterday the U.K. Had 3 options, no deal, Mays deal or no Brexit. Now there are only 2 options, no deal or no Brexit. It is completely unrealistic to imagine that a new deal could be put together by 29 March, or even July, and find majority support both in parliament and the EU.
I expect panic to spread as we approach 29 March and Parliament will then vote to revoke A50, followed by either a referendum or a general election, perhaps both.
TM will bring back another deal before that and it is more likely that a referendum on her deal v remain, then revoke
I think this is spot on. I have no idea where things will go from here bit it would delight me if both those sets of zealots outside Parliament could somehow lose. The Deal was far from perfect and I think it was poorly negotiated but as far as the fundamentals go - we leave but maintain ties with the EU - it is basically the template for every single possible deal that could realistically be negotiated. It is a great shame it wasn't given more respect by both sides.
I wonder if there is a psychological need for parliament to make a lot of noise, since TM has kept everything so tight and insular, and that once they have been allowed to do so, have some votes, have some meetings, that they will eventually face the big question of do we want to leave the EU?, and if yes we must ratify the Treaty, maybe with some changes to the PD, some further assurances bla bla, so that it does eventually get passed, maybe a short extension to implement, but just a matter of time.
That is what I have always thought. And perhaps still do, on balance, but what is increasingly dawning on me is the extent of the DUP problem. They are not only against the Treaty, they will collapse the government if it were to pass. So I am beginning to think that a general election is needed first. Like, if the Brexit impasse were a disease and I was the attending Doctor, a general election is what I would now be prescribing. Not in the certain knowledge that it would provide a cure, but in the reasonable hope that it would, no other remedies being obviously available.
The first part was what I was floating this morning. From my experience in industrial relations, things always seem the worst in the moments before a way through is found and agreed. The problem, I think, is that our PM (despite her underestimated skills in progressing determinedly down a single path, on which I have commented before) doesn't have the skill set to deliver a majority in Parliament for any proposal of her own.
For any proposal regardless of whether its her own or not. Which is why the Tories really need to find a way to sideline her as currently
... which the Conservative Party will not call, as it would involve May leading another campaign and one in which the splits in the Party and between the Party leadership and activists would be catastrophic. And which no Party can call without the Conservatives' acquiescence.
Therefore... what?
The answer is that to leave the EU, a ratified Withdrawal Treaty is not needed. Just extremely useful in avoiding disruption, turmoil and unpleasantness.
Given that the Withdrawal Treaty will not be ratified, no GUC is feasible, a JC minority is not feasible, a New Election is not feasible, either an alternative Withdrawal Agreement will be agreed (highly unlikely; red lines would have to be erased), or we have a disorderly Brexit (more likely) or we do not leave the EU despite the 2016 referendum (less likely).
Well exactly.
If a general election is not possible, we really are stuffed.
Like you say, it leaves us with the twin unpalatables of over the cliff or trashing the 2016 referendum.
A customs union prevents us from dispensing with EU import tariffs.
It keeps goods expensive.
Average EU import tariffs are 1.6% for external goods and 0% internally. They are lower in most cases than the cost of handling EU/UK customs declarations. Also the UK would apply customs tariffs of its own, which would include goods from the EU unless otherewise negotiated in a preferential trade deal.
So, no. Prices would be higher outside of the customs union.
Isn't the logic that, if the cost of collecting a tax is greater than the tax revenue, you don't impose the tax? Or am I misunderstanding what you've said about EU tariffs.
The backstop is effectively being in the Customs Union, but without paying any fees (and without the FoM requirement). It's ironic that this very good deal for us is the one most vociferously rejected.
For the long term, I think it's very unlikely that the EU would allow us to be in the CU but not in the Single Market and agreeing to FoM. Cherry-picking.
You will insist on injecting a dose of reality into our unicorn-stalking fantasies.
The FTPA was created by the Lib Dems because they feared the Tory party might ditch David Cameron and replace him with headbanger who might cut and run and call an early election.
and it was sensible for that period
now we have the spectacle of a government held to ransom by its own backbenchers, anybody can flounce on anything and theres no downside until the next GE
That's a feature not a bug, surely. I'm enjoying the House of Commons actually acting like a legislature and not a patsy of the Government.
no doubt there is fun to be had, but in between there is no governance and things the country needs to do just dont get done
Like what?
ooh we could reform the house of Lords perhaps, have an economic policy, build some roads and houses, reform University financing, reform overseas aid, stick some meaningful green policies like maritime no fishing zones, plant some forests, delegate more powers down to local government and finance it properly etc
Most of that's due to the Government having Brexit to work on and it taking over everything else. Not because it can't get legislation through Parliament. Nothing to do with it being held ransome by its backbenchers, unless you think that the role of the House of Commons is to rubber-stamp whatever the Government tells it to (which is arguably what it has done in the past).
If your solution is repealing the FTPA you need to explain how an Act to do it gets through this parliament. There is no time to use the Parliament Act, the Salisbury Convention wouldn't apply and it wouldn't be a simple Act as you can't just restore the Crown Perogative. You'd be asking the current Commons and Lords to hand the executive it's nuclear weapon back and at some speed. It's not going to happen.
It's also a misreading of the government's predicament. It's the FTPA that allows the DUP to vote against the backstop and provide confidence. If you force them to choose....
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).
It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.
I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
A good snapshot in PMQ's was when Ken Clarke offered his opinion that A50 should be extended and a customs union considered, Bridgen mouthed 'insane'
And there is the problem. TM needs to navigate a way that marginalising these ultras
She's not going to try. Her remarks during PMQs suggest that she doesn't intend to budge on any of the core facets of the deal: there'll be no customs union and no freedom of movement. Indeed, how can she make any substantial concessions at all? Firstly the Withdrawal Agreement is what's already been agreed with the EU27 - and Britain cannot, of course, compel them to offer something else, regardless of the Parliamentary arithmetic - and secondly, even if they are amenable to some kind of renegotiation it's only likely to be on terms that draw the UK closer into European integration, an outcome which May believes to be inconsistent with honouring the Leave vote.
Unbelievably, despite the record drubbing inflicted on the Deal only last night, a Government success in tonight's VoNC will reveal that nothing has changed. May is still running down the clock, still intending to present a heavily pro-EU Parliament with no choice other than her Withdrawal Agreement or Hard Brexit.
This only changes if HoC procedures are changed to remove the Government's control of the legislative timetable, or if a sufficient number of Conservative Hard Remainers get desperate enough to decide to vote out their own Government. Until then we're still heading for Deal or No Deal, and No Deal on March 29th remains the law of the land.
Until yesterday the U.K. Had 3 options, no deal, Mays deal or no Brexit. Now there are only 2 options, no deal or no Brexit. It is completely unrealistic to imagine that a new deal could be put together by 29 March, or even July, and find majority support both in parliament and the EU.
I expect panic to spread as we approach 29 March and Parliament will then vote to revoke A50, followed by either a referendum or a general election, perhaps both.
TM will bring back another deal before that and it is more likely that a referendum on her deal v remain, then revoke
I do not think the EU will offer May another deal. They cannot trust her to deliver.
May's deal is not dead but it's on life-support and no-one's particularly keen to revive it. The only reason it's not dead is that it might still yet be the only option other than No Deal.
May cannot assuage the ERG, as they're up for a hard Brexit, therefore to get anything else through, she needs opposition votes. She should, therefore have sought to engage Corbyn immediately (and it's a measure of her political tin ear and her lack of interest in doing things for soft reasons rather than hard outcomes that she hasn't). She should still reach out, VoNC notwithstanding.
What would Labour want? Their declared policy is CU + employment protections. It's time to concede on the CU. Those trade deals aren't happening and are unlikely to happen to any great extent. Ditching that former red line will prompt resignations; may will just have to deal with that. Fact is, the ERG shot their VoNC bolt before Xmas and can't fire it again for 11 months unless there's very widespread support among Con MPs to do so. I don't think that conceding the CU point would prompt that widespread agitation.
Equivalent employment protection is another thing though. It would make the UK a rule-taker in an area that Eurosceptics have long argued should not be an EU competence at all. There may be scope to agree a temporary alignment (through to the end of a transition period, say), but I don't think Con MPs could sign up to anything permanent as part of a Treaty. Perhaps the best argument to put to Labour is that with populist right-wing governments increasingly in office, the one-way EU ratchet on employment benefits may not always operate. Would Corbyn really want to be tied in to a Treaty clause that demanded he implement cuts to rights if the EU introduced them?
Of course, to include membership of the CU would mean re-writing the WA, which the EU has supposedly ruled out. I suspect though that were Westminster to agree on that policy, they'd talk: it'd keep the UK closer while also providing some certainty. Obviously, that'd mean extending A50, possibly until after July 1, which the EU won't like but which still might be least-worst.
By yesterday's vote, the chances of May's deal being voted through have fallen a long way, with the resultant increase in a chance of either No Deal or Remain - indeed, one of those two is inevitable if there's no deal acceptable to Westminster. Does she have the imagination and political space to find such a deal? On balance, I don't think so - but she might yet surprise me.
A good snapshot in PMQ's was when Ken Clarke offered his opinion that A50 should be extended and a customs union considered, Bridgen mouthed 'insane'
And there is the problem. TM needs to navigate a way that marginalising these ultras
She's not going to try. Her remarks during PMQs suggest that she doesn't intend to budge on any of the core facets of the deal: there'll be no customs union and no freedom of movement. Indeed, how can she make any substantial concessions at all? Firstly the Withdrawal Agreement is what's already been agreed with the EU27 - and Britain cannot, of course, compel them to offer something else, regardless of the Parliamentary arithmetic - and secondly, even if they are amenable to some kind of renegotiation it's only likely to be on terms that draw the UK closer into European integration, an outcome which May believes to be inconsistent with honouring the Leave vote.
Unbelievably, despite the record drubbing inflicted on the Deal only last night, a Government success in tonight's VoNC will reveal that nothing has changed. May is still running down the clock, still intending to present a heavily pro-EU Parliament with no choice other than her Withdrawal Agreement or Hard Brexit.
This only changes if HoC procedures are changed to remove the Government's control of the legislative timetable, or if a sufficient number of Conservative Hard Remainers get desperate enough to decide to vote out their own Government. Until then we're still heading for Deal or No Deal, and No Deal on March 29th remains the law of the land.
Until yesterday the U.K. Had 3 options, no deal, Mays deal or no Brexit. Now there are only 2 options, no deal or no Brexit. It is completely unrealistic to imagine that a new deal could be put together by 29 March, or even July, and find majority support both in parliament and the EU.
I expect panic to spread as we approach 29 March and Parliament will then vote to revoke A50, followed by either a referendum or a general election, perhaps both.
TM will bring back another deal before that and it is more likely that a referendum on her deal v remain, then revoke
I do not think the EU will offer May another deal. They cannot trust her to deliver.
I dont think they will do anything substantial but she will still resubmit a deal
A good snapshot in PMQ's was when Ken Clarke offered his opinion that A50 should be extended and a customs union considered, Bridgen mouthed 'insane'
And there is the problem. TM needs to navigate a way that marginalising these ultras
Ken Clarke as PM of Government of National Unity with Labour making his position a condition of their support, so he has nothing to fear from his own side. Exactly like happened with Churchill.
Can Theresa AFFORD to take the line as reported in the Guardian, viz 'Andrea Leadsom says PM will be engaging with people ‘who want to talk constructively’'.
Meaning she won't talk to the LOTO. Anyway, to whom is she prepared to talk. She'd better make up her mind in the next few hours.
I suspect she will talk to Starmer but also it looks as if she may turn to the Liaison Committee
I don't see how she can pick and choose among Opposition politicians.
Is it possible that Corbyn just point blank refuses to talk to her, on anything?
If he refuses, fine. But she ought to try. The government is in a hole. It cannot afford to be high and mighty and arrogant. That is why last night it suffered the worst defeat ever. That’s May’s legacy; that’s her 3 lines in the history books . Now she needs to get out of the way if she cannot show any flexibility.
She tried in 2017
Corbyn emailed her his manifesto (copying a few journalists) and said “we’ll support you on implementing this programme”
A good snapshot in PMQ's was when Ken Clarke offered his opinion that A50 should be extended and a customs union considered, Bridgen mouthed 'insane'
And there is the problem. TM needs to navigate a way that marginalising these ultras
Ken Clarke as PM of Government of National Unity with Labour making his position a condition of their support, so he has nothing to fear from his own side. Exactly like happened with Churchill.
That's the weird thing - we are probably on the edge of something dramatic and almost unprecedented, but we don't know what it is.
Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....
The FTPA was created by the Lib Dems because they feared the Tory party might ditch David Cameron and replace him with headbanger who might cut and run and call an early election.
and it was sensible for that period
now we have the spectacle of a government held to ransom by its own backbenchers, anybody can flounce on anything and theres no downside until the next GE
That's a feature not a bug, surely. I'm enjoying the House of Commons actually acting like a legislature and not a patsy of the Government.
no doubt there is fun to be had, but in between there is no governance and things the country needs to do just dont get done
Like what?
ooh we could reform the house of Lords perhaps, have an economic policy, build some roads and houses, reform University financing, reform overseas aid, stick some meaningful green policies like maritime no fishing zones, plant some forests, delegate more powers down to local government and finance it properly etc
Most of that's due to the Government having Brexit to work on and it taking over everything else. Not because it can't get legislation through Parliament. Nothing to do with it being held ransome by its backbenchers, unless you think that the role of the House of Commons is to rubber-stamp whatever the Government tells it to (which is arguably what it has done in the past).
parliament as a whole has been doing little but Brexit for the last 2 years. Its their infatuation, voters not so much. This lot desrever to get sacjked in their entirety for failure to perform.
Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....
Irrelivent because all trust was lost after the last pairing debarcle. This is the Tories own making.
Until yesterday the U.K. Had 3 options, no deal, Mays deal or no Brexit. Now there are only 2 options, no deal or no Brexit. It is completely unrealistic to imagine that a new deal could be put together by 29 March, or even July, and find majority support both in parliament and the EU.
I expect panic to spread as we approach 29 March and Parliament will then vote to revoke A50, followed by either a referendum or a general election, perhaps both.
I don't think the UK has any semi-decent options.
- May's Deal has been massively clobbered by parliament. I don't think it entirely fair to dismiss MPs as self-indulgent. The point is that it only somewhat satisfies the Reluctant Remainer crowd who think Brexit needs to be delivered. True Remainers want to remain and Leavers don't think it delivers what they voted for. It is likely most of the electorate will have as little appetite for the deal as MPs once they address in the particular.
- Remain through a referendum is, if anything, made more problematic since the massive rejection of one side of the referendum question.
- No Deal is not an end state. It simply aggravates the crisis. No Deal would only ever be an end state if the UK planned never to have any arrangements of any kind with the EU. Otherwise you are back to the issues of May's Deal.
Given we have no real options at all, the long grass is the only way out of this mess in my view. Note the people narrowly voted to leave the European Union. Note that no satisfactory route out of the EU has so far been identified. Revoke Article 50. Set up a Royal Commission o identify how the UK can move to a new arrangement that satisfies the main stakeholders. Let the process take its course.
Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....
She wanted to vote in person, so that all could view her martyrdom.
Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....
She wanted to vote in person, so that all could view her martyrdom.
absolutely but they also want to claim it was evil tories who forced her to attend
PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?
It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).
It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.
I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....
Irrelivent because all trust was lost after the last pairing debarcle. This is the Tories own making.
of course failing to honour a pair with her on the vote last night wouldn't have attracted any attention at all.
Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....
Irrelivent because all trust was lost after the last pairing debarcle. This is the Tories own making.
of course failing to honour a pair with her on the vote last night wouldn't have attracted any attention at all.
Comments
On the Conservative side its 317 MPs less 2 speakers less the tellers so 313 max...
Unionist MPs can take that 324...
I do think she may lose fewer Tory MPs than you'd expect because a significant number of those who voted for her deal last night were either quiet-lifers, or loyalists, or anything-but-no-dealers, all groups who would vote for just about anything she put forward. Also if she got close I think the whips would be able to do a much more effective job of pushing waverers over the line.
Even given all of the above, though, I just don't see how she could make the numbers add up.
Perhaps JRM & Co would secretly not mind this outcome too much. Back to the great and noble struggle with a grievance fueled tiger in their tank.
And there is the problem. TM needs to navigate a way that marginalising these ultras
However logically (yes I know, dangerous thing with Brexit) it would be bonkers to Leave the single market but remain in the customs union.
I think Leavers would fear that eventually the pressure would force us to (re)join the single markets, which would mean free movement.
Given the DUP has 10 MPs and Labour had 262 (Less 2 tellers less Speaker and deputy) who were the 2 abstainers ?
It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.
I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
Personally I'm in favour of CU membership, as negotiating trade deals is the one thing the EU is unambiguously good at. But the argument is that the deals are structured primarily to benefit France/Germany, and with no EU membership, we'd have zero negotiating power to redirect that to our key interests. Of course, the hard Leavers mostly believe we never had that power anyway, in which case Leaving whilst retaining CU membership is a strict upgrade on Remaining.
For the long term, I think it's very unlikely that the EU would allow us to be in the CU but not in the Single Market and agreeing to FoM. Cherry-picking.
If the only way to leave is with the Treaty, and the Treaty is blocked by the DUP (because they would collapse the govt if it passed), then I don't see how we can leave as long as we have this configuration in parliament, i.e. before a GE.
Ahead of the referendum result, I said the customs union was the only thing I'd consider a firm red line. It's demented to vote to Leave the EU, then have them dictate our trade deals, and pay them for the privilege. We might as well stay in rather than go ahead with that nonsense.
The FTPA does have a sunset clause which should have kicked in 2020 but will now kick in 2022.
now we have the spectacle of a government held to ransom by its own backbenchers, anybody can flounce on anything and theres no downside until the next GE
The current impasse is due to many things, amongst which May's intransigence and incompetence certainly number.
Unbelievably, despite the record drubbing inflicted on the Deal only last night, a Government success in tonight's VoNC will reveal that nothing has changed. May is still running down the clock, still intending to present a heavily pro-EU Parliament with no choice other than her Withdrawal Agreement or Hard Brexit.
This only changes if HoC procedures are changed to remove the Government's control of the legislative timetable, or if a sufficient number of Conservative Hard Remainers get desperate enough to decide to vote out their own Government. Until then we're still heading for Deal or No Deal, and No Deal on March 29th remains the law of the land.
Davis is still a colossal arsehole, however.
It keeps goods expensive.
That is what I have always thought. And perhaps still do, on balance, but what is increasingly dawning on me is the extent of the DUP problem. They are not only against the Treaty, they will collapse the government if it were to pass. So I am beginning to think that a general election is needed first. Like, if the Brexit impasse were a disease and I was the attending Doctor, a general election is what I would now be prescribing. Not in the certain knowledge that it would provide a cure, but in the reasonable hope that it would, no other remedies being obviously available.
So, no. Prices would be higher outside of the customs union.
I expect panic to spread as we approach 29 March and Parliament will then vote to revoke A50, followed by either a referendum or a general election, perhaps both.
https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/1085200657034940417
If a general election is not possible, we really are stuffed.
Like you say, it leaves us with the twin unpalatables of over the cliff or trashing the 2016 referendum.
Which do we prefer, Reggie or Ronnie?
DUP will oppose. Tories will back it. Every other party incentivised to oppose because it’s a VONC.
Beauty of the exchange is that there is none of that nonsense.
It's also a misreading of the government's predicament. It's the FTPA that allows the DUP to vote against the backstop and provide confidence. If you force them to choose....
Apols if 40 people have already responded.
May's deal is not dead but it's on life-support and no-one's particularly keen to revive it. The only reason it's not dead is that it might still yet be the only option other than No Deal.
May cannot assuage the ERG, as they're up for a hard Brexit, therefore to get anything else through, she needs opposition votes. She should, therefore have sought to engage Corbyn immediately (and it's a measure of her political tin ear and her lack of interest in doing things for soft reasons rather than hard outcomes that she hasn't). She should still reach out, VoNC notwithstanding.
What would Labour want? Their declared policy is CU + employment protections. It's time to concede on the CU. Those trade deals aren't happening and are unlikely to happen to any great extent. Ditching that former red line will prompt resignations; may will just have to deal with that. Fact is, the ERG shot their VoNC bolt before Xmas and can't fire it again for 11 months unless there's very widespread support among Con MPs to do so. I don't think that conceding the CU point would prompt that widespread agitation.
Equivalent employment protection is another thing though. It would make the UK a rule-taker in an area that Eurosceptics have long argued should not be an EU competence at all. There may be scope to agree a temporary alignment (through to the end of a transition period, say), but I don't think Con MPs could sign up to anything permanent as part of a Treaty. Perhaps the best argument to put to Labour is that with populist right-wing governments increasingly in office, the one-way EU ratchet on employment benefits may not always operate. Would Corbyn really want to be tied in to a Treaty clause that demanded he implement cuts to rights if the EU introduced them?
Of course, to include membership of the CU would mean re-writing the WA, which the EU has supposedly ruled out. I suspect though that were Westminster to agree on that policy, they'd talk: it'd keep the UK closer while also providing some certainty. Obviously, that'd mean extending A50, possibly until after July 1, which the EU won't like but which still might be least-worst.
By yesterday's vote, the chances of May's deal being voted through have fallen a long way, with the resultant increase in a chance of either No Deal or Remain - indeed, one of those two is inevitable if there's no deal acceptable to Westminster. Does she have the imagination and political space to find such a deal? On balance, I don't think so - but she might yet surprise me.
Corbyn emailed her his manifesto (copying a few journalists) and said “we’ll support you on implementing this programme”
- May's Deal has been massively clobbered by parliament. I don't think it entirely fair to dismiss MPs as self-indulgent. The point is that it only somewhat satisfies the Reluctant Remainer crowd who think Brexit needs to be delivered. True Remainers want to remain and Leavers don't think it delivers what they voted for. It is likely most of the electorate will have as little appetite for the deal as MPs once they address in the particular.
- Remain through a referendum is, if anything, made more problematic since the massive rejection of one side of the referendum question.
- No Deal is not an end state. It simply aggravates the crisis. No Deal would only ever be an end state if the UK planned never to have any arrangements of any kind with the EU. Otherwise you are back to the issues of May's Deal.
Given we have no real options at all, the long grass is the only way out of this mess in my view. Note the people narrowly voted to leave the European Union. Note that no satisfactory route out of the EU has so far been identified. Revoke Article 50. Set up a Royal Commission o identify how the UK can move to a new arrangement that satisfies the main stakeholders. Let the process take its course.
But heck...